UFO Religions

Another Scientist Expresses Skepticism Over Cardinal Doctrine of All ET Religions

Astrophysicist John Gribbon’s new book Alone in the Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique was recently reviewed in the Wall Street Journal. The reviewer refers to the book as “grimly plausible” and notes that Gribbon has a firm grasp on something obvious to all those who still care to approach the subject of ET life with logic:  there is a world of difference between habitable planets and inhabited planets. Enjoy!

Technorati Tags: astronomy, astrophysics, extraterrestrial life, habitable planets, inhabited, unique

Panspermia and Religion, Part 1

I’ve mentioned the Journal of Cosmology on this blog before. This online academic journal is known for producing some high-level articles, but has been criticized as well for stirring controversy (most notably the recent claims of “alien bacteria” published in the journal by Dr. Richard Hoover — from which NASA distanced itself).

The journal recently released its September-October 2011 issue. Sure enough, there’s something of interest for readers of this blog.  In particular, the article entitled “Creationism, Neo-Darwinism, and Panspermia” caught my attention. Here is the abstract:

Creationists and neo-Darwinists have spent the past several decades engaged in a sullen trench warfare, occasionally firing at each other with little effect. We argue in this article that an acceptance of panspermia as a “third way” might lead to a long over-due reconciliation between the contending groups.

The short article is worth a read. I think it telling in that it betrays that, at least for some panspermia theorists, this is a religion — and one that is ultimately about trans-humanism. The article ends as follows:

It is not inconceivable that our distant descendants 1000 years from now might evolve further, becoming, from our perspective, super-humans. They might be able to work out the requirements for directed panspermia, perhaps launching our planet’s entire assemblage of genes into space18. This might be science fiction today, but science fiction can sometimes turn into science fact. Many distinguished scientists have expressed similar views, including Sir Arthur Eddington, and Sir Fred Hoyle, who wrote: “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature…” (quotation from Hoyle, F., 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections, Ann.Rev.Astron.Astrophys., 20, 15).

Technorati Tags: evolution, God, Panspermia, religion, transhumanism

On Intelligent Design’s Ability to Embrace Evolution and Adapt to Various “Designers”

This post critiquing a well-known Christian Darwinist’s mis-articulation of intelligent design is absolutely worth reading. I post it here in light of several ideas I have noted several times on this blog:

1. Evolutionary theory and intelligent design are not incompatible (it is the Darwinian approach to evolution that is the rub).

2. Given the first statement, proof of evolution would fail to invalidate Christianity’s belief in a creator.

3. Those who desperately want to affirm a panspermia model for how life arose here on earth — thereby validating in their mind the existence of ET life (intelligent or otherwise) and rendering any belief in a Creator as passe — fail to understand intelligent design’s stance toward evolution (not to mention failing in sound logic).

At any rate, the essay is quite good, as it shows through discussions of terms and phrases, omissions and deletions, how intelligent design is misunderstood. And as incoherent as I think their religion is, ancient astronaut theorists will also appreciate it, since it points out how intelligent design can work (along with evolution) for more than one type of creator model.

More Journalistic Incompetence in Reporting on “ET DNA”

You may have heard about the recent NASA news conference.  Apparently the people at the Examiner couldn’t process the simple centerpiece of the new event.  The Examiner is an online twaddle rag akin to the Weekly World News. Here’s the Examiner’s headline:

DNA, Possibly of Extraterrestrial Origin, Found on Meteorites

Uh, no, that wasn’t what NASA said they found.  What NASA actually announced can be viewed here, on NASA’s own site.  NASA reported that THE BUILDING BLOCKS of DNA have been found on meteorites.  You know, the ingredients.

The thinking skills of this journalist make me wonder what other headlines might pop into his head. Say he found a muffler, an oil pan, and a steering wheel outside a Walmart. I can see it now: “Car Discovered in Parking Lot.” Or if he stumbled upon a bag of groceries: “Three Course Meal Found in Plastic Bag.” And can you imagine him at a crime scene? He comes across some hair fibers and blood that didn’t belong to the dead guy on the floor: “Murder Suspect Apprehended at Crime Scene.”

Good grief! BUILDING BLOCKS of DNA are not DNA.  They are the chemical components — unassembled. It’s hard to believe journalism is this inept. Or maybe not.

Technorati Tags: building blocks, DNA, ET, NASA, outer space, Panspermia

Could We Tell An Advanced ET from God?

Famous atheist Michael Shermer asks that question here. It’s a good overview of things to think about in this regard. I am in basic agreement that the existence of an advanced ET would be embraced as God by many, perhaps most. But despite the article’s strengths, it misses obvious “tests” — like prove to us, Mr. ET, that you (a) can create matter itself, from nothing; and (b) that you’re the entity who did so aeons ago.  The “aeons” part of that also would require the ET to prove that his species no longer dies (or at least is not capable of death). I list this as an omission since this is part and parcel of any theistic religion’s definition of God. Third, there is the matter of not being part of the material creation. Any theistic religion believes God created all matter – all that is, “visible and invisible” to borrow the New Testament language. Without being able to demonstrate this attribute, ET would not be accepted as God.

Anyway, I could pick at this more, but you get the idea.

Technorati Tags: creation, ET, extraterrestrial, God, theology